Miriam is one hot butch
Congratulations to our own Miriam, #68 on "Top Hot Butches: The 100 hottest butch, masculine, androgynous, genderqueer, transmasculine, studs, AGs, dykes, queers, and transguys." (For those with concerns about how hot lists objectify, I think Sinclair's explanation here is really great.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Miriam is one hot butch.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14524
I'm going to have to spend time time checking this out...
Whoa, why is Joan Jett last?? C'mon, she's still relevant! And hot. In a non-objectifying way. Seriously, I like the women and male identified people on this list. It's kind of cool to see a new standard of beauty.
oh good lord. *swoon*
id like to give another honorable mention to ken vegas. oy fucking vey.
http://www.kenvegas.com/Pages/galleries.html
Congrats to Miriam, along with my fierce jealously that she gets to be on the same list as Rachel Maddow and Amy Ray. And I've only gotten through the top ten!
Are you fucking kidding me?
Trans men are NOT butches. Trans men are NOT lesbians who have just "gone over the edge." They are not examples of "female masculinity" as the author says. They are NOT WOMEN and do not belong on a list of hot WOMEN! God, how hard is this for people to understand!?
After all the shit that we have talked about lately on this blog, I am FLOORED that this got posted, and quite frankly, pretty fucking disgusted.
This is transphobic. Any attempt to place trans men in the same category as butch women is transphobic, because they are not subsets of each other. Trans men are men. End of story.
From Sinclair's explanation of using the term 'butch':
Just stating "you know, the trans men may not like this but..." does not make it any less transphobic.
Just saying "I know some people will be offended but..." has never been a free pass to treat people however you please, and it should not be a free pass here, either.
See my point below, about this being otherwise a list exclusively of women EXCEPT for the trans men, who are awkwardly lumped in together with these women.
Please note the use of "female masculinity" in that very quote you just posted, if you doubt that this was, intentionally or unintentionally, a list that advertised as a list of women with "masculine" presentations.
Just because the author says they didn't mean to offend anyone doesn't mean they didn't.
Just because the author makes a feeble note that "not everyone identifies this way" doesn't make it appropriate to conflate trans men and butch women.
It just doesn't.
That term up there "female masculinity" is just so fucking insulting when applied to trans men that I can't believe it was even uttered in the first place. Why do we have to keep insisting that trans men are really just sort of like butch women? They're not. They're just not. I don't know how many times this has to be said.
Maybe the way trans men present is an "intentional display of masculinity," but so are a lot of presentations that didn't make this list. No, this just smacks of the old "trans men are just really hardcore butch lesbians" trope.
This disclaimer just doesn't cut it. I still find this transphobic.
First: Why should any trans person give a shit how some cis person has decided to redefine trans to suit the cis person's purposes?
Second: "they do present in a way that rejects compulsory femininity, and displays some sort of intentional masculinity, and that is what unites them all in this particular list."
That this person could only come up with Riki Wilchins as an example of trans women who meets this description speaks loud and clear about their community, and I would lay money down that there aren't any trans women, or if there are, she's probably her own peer group and certainly doesn't date.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least five vocal, feminist trans women who could be described this way, and could have been on this list. For that to happen, though, people like the creator of this list would need to know we exist, and to do that... well... they'd have to live in communities where trans women are welcome.
Does nobody else see a problem with conflating trans men with butch lesbians?
For both groups really -- doesn't it simultaneously tell people that "butch" lesbians really want to be men and trans men are actually women to conflate the two?
I mean, there are no cis men on that list, and it specifically states that it is a list of women "representing some sort of female masculinity."
What exactly is female about a man? If men who actively and intentionally present their masculinity in an attractive way are fair game, why aren't cis men allowed on the list?
Seems like that wasn't thought through very well...
This is for you and Entomology Girl: I understand your concerns with the conflation. But do you think this list is about them being women, or about defiance of gender norms in general? I remember one of the persons on the list keeps SWITCHING pronouns, so maybe the conflation here is transgender and genderqueer.
I'm all for a general recognition of the attractiveness of people who defy gender norms. However, even if that's what this list is trying to be, I can't see it in that way.
There are no trans women, for example. Or cross-dressing men, or effeminate gay men. No. This is not a list about everyone who defies gender norms.
Every other label in the title, every other person on the list was a woman with a traditionally non-feminine presentation, except for trans men.
You're right that there was someone listed who seemed to be perhaps more gender-queer than strictly trans, but that doesn't change the fact that "transguys" was actually IN THE TITLE. It also doesn't mean that just because this person is comfortable with both a male and female identity, that all trans people suddenly have to be comfortable either way as well. Many of us aren't.
This was a list with the stated purpose of showing *women* who defied gender norms. Trans men are not women. Trans men are MEN who have found themselves in a body that most people considered feminine.
To say that a trans man is a woman who defies gender norms is, quite frankly, extremely insulting to many trans men and to the idea of gender identity more generally.
I agree with you on that point. Transgender men are not butch women.
This is a difficult issue, and I think that when discussing it, we have to be delicate that we don't go either too far one way or too far the other.
I agree with you, Zyfron, that conflating butch women and trans men is not just problematic, but downright transphobic. That being said, I don't perceive that to be the intention of this project. Full disclosure, I read Sinclair's blog and have read a wide range of his theoretical writings about gender, so I may be biased.
There are two things that I think stick out to me as problematic and areas for improvement in this project. One is the phrase you quoted: "female masculinity." Sinclair seems to do a good job everywhere else (his blog www.sugarbutch.net, Twitter, the other parts of the list's webpage) talking about how ze's really talking about queer masculinity in general, which ze terms "butch," for the purpose of this project. That in itself, as a celebration of masculinity in queer circles (and I hesitate to use "queer" as an umbrella term at all, since even it does not always do justice to the range of sexualities, gender identities, and gender expressions that I intend it to encompass), is a laudable goal, in my opinion. It is one, I think, that Sinclair has unfortunately failed to convey. I think ze may have been better off choosing a phrase like female-assigned masculinity/masculine people, or something along those lines, rather than unequivocably saying that hir's list represented "female masculinity."
In addition, I would feel much less that this list was appropriating people's identities if it weren't...Appropriating people's identities. I think that the goal of increasing butch visibility is great, but I think it needs to be CONSENSUAL inclusion. I know trans men who would be extremely offended to be included in this list, and I know trans men who would love to be included in this list. It's a fact that not ALL trans men are male-IDed, just as it's a fact that some are, so stating that NO TRANS MEN EVAR want to be included with butch women/transmasculine people/genderqueer people/etc. is just as flawed (and ID-assuming)as saying that ALL trans men are automatically part of one or more of those categories.
The problem comes down to informed consent, IMO. It is problematic, to me, that people were included and labeled as butch even if, as another commenter insinuated, they are just men being manly, not queers being butch. That is the part that I think is transphobic.
That being said, the list is really hot...
PS: This is a disclaimer. Please call me out on my cissexist/transphobic BS if I have inadvertently released it on to the interwebs. I don't try or pretend to speak for the trans community or individual trans people. I'm just presenting some of my (undoubtedly flawed) thoughts about the matter.
I have not looked over Sinclair's blog or Twitter so I am not extremely familiar with his work, and I'm honestly not particularly inspired to learn more about him.
Going from this project. . . this idea of a general queer masculinity/butch identity that you refer to being Sinclair's primary focus, and what this project is seeking to exemplify, albeit, somewhat apologetically (for not acquiring consent), does seem to encompass trans guys and "real" dykes only, as described by Sinclair.
That seems to be what we are presented with.
However, as Sinclair states, all of the individuals chosen for this project are somehow "rejecting compulsory femininity in some way, meaning they present in a way that is intentionally androgynous, masculine, transmasculine, AG, stud, genderqueer, transgender, or butch". Sinclair locks himself in more by stating that [this presentation] is "what unites them all in this particular list".
How exactly is a trans guy simply being a guy rejecting compulsory femininity, which they aren't actually required to embody? (This is very much a loaded and complicated question, I know, but for the sake of discussion, I'll ask it anyway.)
You see, what Sinclair has done is conflated a masculine identity with a male gender identity, which is incredibly problematic, presumptuous, and transphobic (at least to the individuals on this list) because it generalizes their experience to mean that simply because they are presenting as men and were assigned female at birth that they are presenting a masculine "butch" identity.
Also, if Sinclair is attempting to present a "queer masculinity in general", then why are there only one trans woman (to my current knowledge) on this list and no men assigned male at birth? Surely there are many individuals in those categories who embody a queer masculinity. Quite frankly, there is a multitude of ways to look at this that would end with Sinclair very much being at fault.
You are correct to state that assuming that all trans guys are binary identified is just as problematic as what has been done here, however, the issue does go far beyond informed consent.
This is objectification, pure and simple. And I'm using Sinclair's rules here. There is no respect involved in this project simply because consent was not obtained, individuals' identities were appropriated and assumed, and Sinclair is situating himself as an expert on a queer masculine identity, regardless of whether that was his intention.
Furthermore and please pardon my language, but wtf is a "real" dyke? I think that phrase is problematic enough without hearing the explanation.
Sinclair has very much included individuals who, some explicitly, do not identify as butch. You see, regardless of whether the transphobia is the intent of this project, it is, nevertheless, a part of this project that has not been solved or made better by Sinclair's flimsy apology at using individuals without their consent as well as placing an identity on them, which they may not hold. There is no excuse for this, and the matter is made worse by individuals either simply ignoring this fact [Feministing] or being okay with it because "the list is really hot".
I do apologize, I don't mean that line as a personal attack, but that is often the case, is it not? People are often willing to let things slide based off of hotness/attractiveness/who does it really hurt?
Well, the answer is a lot of people. What has transpired here is essentially what people within the "queer" community often berate outsiders for doing. Sinclair seems to feel that his stated flimsy apology is enough when this should not have happened in the first place. He simply had no right to create this list without finding out the actual identity of those individuals listed, regardless of how tedious or hard a process it may have been.
"You see, what Sinclair has done is conflated a masculine identity with a male gender identity, which is incredibly problematic, presumptuous, and transphobic (at least to the individuals on this list) because it generalizes their experience to mean that simply because they are presenting as men and were assigned female at birth that they are presenting a masculine "butch" identity."
*Nods* I totally agree. I apologize if my comments seemed to imply otherwise. I also want to say that I'm a hardhead, and should ahve listened to my own bias warning and thought a little longer before I posted a comment. Thanks for very clearly and rightly pointing out where I was being apologist.
"This is objectification, pure and simple. And I'm using Sinclair's rules here. There is no respect involved in this project simply because consent was not obtained, individuals' identities were appropriated and assumed, and Sinclair is situating himself as an expert on a queer masculine identity, regardless of whether that was his intention."
*Nods again* I totally agree. And also, thank you for all the other comments you've posted on this thread. You've definitely been a voice of reason in all of this.
And you are also totally right about the "the list is HAWT!" being used to derail meaningful discussion about how f*ed up this is.
Basically, you're right. Thanks for your reply!
"There is no excuse for this, and the matter is made worse by individuals either simply ignoring this fact [Feministing] or being okay with it because 'the list is really hot'."
I have used "but-the-list-is-hawt" line myself in comments on another board, not to *excuse* the politics, but as an adjacent issue. I was acknowledging that the images are of attractive and sexy people who don't usually get that kinda "play" and that was nice to see. I believe that this acknowledgment can exist AT THE SAME TIME AS recognizing and calling out the extreme ignorance of the issues with which the list collides.
In short, my panties can be simultaneously wet AND in-a-twist. ;~P
~ hb33 ~
I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that, often times, that line is used to derail conversation and simulaneously justify what is happening. Furthermore, it doesn't particularly (and this is how I feel in terms of me) show people that you are actually seriously critiquing the fucked up ness of something if you are also continually going "they're sooo hot!!!".
But, again, that's my stance on the issue and doesn't have to apply to everyone.
"I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that, often times, that line is used to derail conversation and simulaneously justify what is happening."
yes, that part of it is unfortunate. I try to make it clear that I'm separating personal sexuality from political issues and that probably doesn't always come through as loudly to some as it sh/could.
"Furthermore, it doesn't particularly ... show people that you are actually seriously critiquing the fucked up ness of something if you are also continually going 'they're sooo hot!!!'."
um ... my critique is not considered serious cuz I'm turned on? (can you give an all-too-human gal a break?) ;~)
(and was it belittling to my intelligent discussion of complex cultural politics that I just started wiggling and whining, "but I'm just a giiiirrrrllll ... ?") ;~D
~ hb33, who realizes she just answered her own question ~
I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that, often times, that line is used to derail conversation and simulaneously justify what is happening. Furthermore, it doesn't particularly (and this is how I feel in terms of me) show people that you are actually seriously critiquing the fucked up ness of something if you are also continually going "they're sooo hot!!!".
But, again, that's my stance on the issue and doesn't have to apply to everyone.
I second hsd, and direct you to zerk's and jayadam's comments below.
...people were included and labeled as butch even if, as another commenter insinuated, they are just men being manly, not queers being butch.
This is a big part of the problem here. A lot of trans men are not queers just because they had the misfortune of being mislabeled an incorrect gender from birth. They aren't trying to do anything radical. A good many are just trying to live their lives in peace and quiet as men. (This also goes for trans women.)
You say there are trans men who would love to be on this list. I'm sure there are. That doesn't make it OK to once again publicly reinforce the stereotype that trans men are butch women. Why is it so damn hard just to err on the side of caution here? Why is it OK to go ahead and do something that some people will be all right with but others will perceive as incredibly transphobic?
This is a bit of an aside, but its a bit ironic that folks find trans men who are just running around being typically masculine to be defying gender norms.
It just seems note worthy because there ARE trans men and women who DO defy gender norms, and along with the BS folks often get for being a feminine man or masculine women, trans men and women who defy gender norms also get their core gender called into question often. By the law, the medical community, various institutions, and their communities. I remember a woman who took underground estrogen because her therapist decided she couldn't possibly be a woman because she was a butch dyke. Or even little things: A few fellows i know have been pressured into cutting their hair by various powers-that-be, even though we even live in a community where many men have long hair.
These stories are really common, and very frustrating.
Well, quite frankly, transgender people are defying gender norms to a certain extent, because the norm is: you're born with genitalia, that's who you are, dang it. Most of the transfolk that I know were very firmly identified boys or girls, or men or women, before they transitioned to the other gender; even some whom I considered myself very close with, and very much surprised me. That's not to say that it was a sudden decision for them-most probably kept quiet about this subject because it's sensitive and can be difficult to deal with in our society, particularly with all the hatred and suspicion of transfolk-but I'd still say they surprised me. It's not a bad thing, and not something I would presume to judge or pretend that I can possibly know what it feels like: but, you know, to have a penis and decide that who you really are is not defined by what you were born with is different.
I think I totally agree with your point though: it's just frustrating and stupid to be told: "Gender-ur not doin it right." Why do people care how anyone presents themselves, or how they identify, or who they feel themselves to be? I certainly don't, and I hope someday no one does.
You really shouldn't be trying to speak for your trans friends like this. I somehow doubt you know the full details of how they identified with or related to either their assigned or actual genders. At no point in my life did I ever identify myself as male, as a boy, as a man, but I am certain that many well-meaning cis people who knew me would assume that I did because my gender was not visible to them, because I did everything I could to hide the fact that I was trans. I never changed my gender.
Being transgender is not automatically transgressive. That's subversivism, and it's BS. It positions trans identities as politically radical, when we're actually simply trying to live our lives. A feminine trans woman is not transgressing gender. A masculine trans man is not transgressing gender. We may be treated as if we are, but that's cissexism or transphobia - it's disrespect for our actual genders.
The idea that genitals define who you are is just another transphobic way to invalidate trans people's genders.
Your assumption here that trans people are just like cis people until we decide to transition is offensive and inaccurate. I'd really like you to reconsider trying to speak for over trans people's voices and listen to what we have to say about our own lives, and not tell us what our lives are really like.
You misunderstand me. "The idea that genitals define who you are is just another transphobic way to invalidate trans people's genders." Most people DO identify this way. The majority of people in the world are cis. I would venture to say that a majority of people buy into these gender binary norms and identifications. That doesn't make it right or better to be cis, nor "normal" but it is something that many people haven't encountered up until pretty recently, openly in society. I probably could've used a better word than "normal," I agree with you, and I apologize for my language.
I also could have been clearer about my friends-they PRESENTED totally as male or female, with my never knowing that they had any different sort of identity, even though most of us were very much into queer activism, language, etc. One of them was my lover, and my best friend for years, so I feel I know her pretty well-and she always presented herself to me, and talked about herself, as a female. Now I use the male pronoun for him, because he has identified himself to me as male. But beyond pronouns, his sex or gender doesn't even matter to me so much, and I respect whatever choice he makes in the future about how he transitions and how he lives his life, as long as he's happy. I don't think of him as some radical activist, proudly defying gender norms; I don't think of anyone like that, unless they specifically tell me that's what I'm doing.
"Your assumption here that trans people are just like cis people until we decide to transition is offensive and inaccurate. I'd really like you to reconsider trying to speak for over trans people's voices and listen to what we have to say about our own lives, and not tell us what our lives are really like."
I was speaking for myself, and for the people I know, whom I have talked to about this issue. I know nothing about your life, and wouldn't presume to speak about it. So while I understand your anger at my generalizations, and I apologize for offending you, please don't assume you know MY friends and the ins and outs of our relationships.
Not to be rude, but please keep in mind that you are responding to members of the trans community talking about our own identities and our own community.
If your friends have a differing experience from ours, that's great. Everyone's individual experiences are unique. But please, do not presume to speak for us simply because you have known some trans people in the past.
We are not telling you that your friends experiences are invalid, though the way you phrased your previous statement (ie: that your friend was female and then *became* male) is certainly not the way most trans people would describe their experience, nor the way most of us would like to be generalized as a community. Also, no matter how close you were to these people, anything you say is still only second-hand experience - it would mean a lot more coming from them, particularly since even close friends so often mistakenly believe what you are saying.
That's not to say that you are necessarily mistaken - just that it's a common mistake because many of us do NOT identify this way, but are still perceived this way. You should think twice before trying to tell trans people what you think about our identities or our lives.
Well, for purposes of this list it seems like a stretch to say one's "defying gender norms" just by accident of the body one's born with. By that thin amount of gender defiance: femmes defy gender norms for women just by being attracted to women, so why doesn't Sinclair add femmes to the list too? Heck, some cisgender bears defy gender norms, and that's some pretty hot queer masculinity!
For me, when faced with such "editorial choices" i go back to the purpose of a project. It seems Sinclair wants to reclaim the sexiness of a population whose attractiveness has been undervalued by the mainstream LGBT community -- an important project for sure!! But trans men and butches, as a trend, have pretty different frustrations and reclamation processes around their bodies and attractiveness. Society gives both a lot of crap to be sure, and certainly sends a lot of negative messages both need to sort through. But it tends to be fairly different messages and they tend to get internalized in different ways. Within in LGBT circles, very few trans men are upset to not be on AfterEllen's Top 100 Hot Lesbians list! Though certainly many would like to see more faces in a Top 100 Hot Gay Men list...
At any rate, being told your sexy by someone who is making the conscious choice to erase your gender (for the men) or expression (for the non-butch women) is hardly empowering or a self-esteem builder! In that way alone i think Sinclair shoots hirself in the foot.
I think you make a good point, and I spoke above a bit about my defiance of gender norms comment, in another response. But for both you and Lisa, here's what I'll say to try and stop my offending: To be, being who you are even if it's dangerous, even if other people or society at large might condemn you, is an act of bravery and defiance. I think that being butch is one act, and that being openly transgender is another. Being liberal is in some cases, or being conservative in some cases might be an act of defiance. It's just that you're honest when it's hard to be so. I kind of think that's what the author was going for, and that's what I found attractice about the people on this list.
I'm going to stop making ANY comments about transgender people as per this post right now, because I seem to keep sticking my foot in my mouth when I talk about my own experiences. I'll just gfinish up by saying that I see your point, even if I don't think about this exactly the same way you do.
yeah, seriously about the AfterEllen list--and since the Hot 100 Butches is in response to AfterEllen's Hot 100 Women, I'm worried people on that site will take this as permission to vote trans men onto that list, especially since as far as I've seen AfterEllen already covers trans men more than trans women (and has certainly not had any trans women on its Hot 100)
I second the comments of Lisa Harney and zerk above.
First of all, having a trans friend does NOT make your opinion of the trans experience than the experiences of those of us who are actually trans ourselves. Please, be willing to listen to what we have to say instead of simply jumping to your own conclusions based on your own (cis) experiences.
Secondly: I am a trans woman. This means that when people look at my body, they see something that they would not normally associate with a woman and thus assume that I am a man. This does not mean that I am a man.
As far as I am concerned, just by virtue of my body I am only transgressing gender about as much as any other flat-chested woman is by virtue of her body. Does having small or flat breasts mean you are "defying gender norms" because others expect them to be larger or rounder?
I do "defy gender norms" in some small ways, such as being an engineer and preferring baggy clothes or clothes from the men's section. But in general I don't feel the need or the desire to "transgress" a feminine presentation except out of safety. I actually DO often present "an intentionally masculine presentation" because I don't feel SAFE doing anything else. Is that what we are celebrating? living in fear?
But you seem to think that when I, as a woman, am presenting in a feminine way that I am defying gender roles. Just because I look like a man at first glance, or often act like one out of fear, doesn't mean that when I am able to relax I am somehow stepping outside traditional roles just by having been born a woman.
The only way that would make sense is if you believe that, despite what I tell you about my own experiences, I was NOT born a woman, or am not REALLY a woman, or won't really be a woman until I get enough medical treatment that I look like one to you. That's where it becomes transphobic.
And for the record: YOU may not care about my presentation or my identity, but can't you please respect the fact that I DO care about it? And more relevantly, that a lot of people on this list probably care about their own identities as well, and thus would not want them to be misrepresented?
I see what you're saying-I think my response to you above might speak to this more. I'll stop this now, and I apologized to Lisa for any offense that I caused Lisa, and I apologize to you. I'm going to start over to clear up how I feel on this topic.
First: When I said that my friend's gender doesn't matter to me, it's not that I don't think it's not important to him: and by proxy to you, it's that his gender has no bearing on his worth to me as a person, and were I to meet you, your gender or your presentation would be irrelevant to me as per your worth as a human being.
Second: You are correct, both you and Lisa, that I fell into the "talking about," rather than "listening to," trap, and I think that was intellectual laziness on my part. I tend to overgeneralize from my own experiences.
Third: I don't think transmen are women who are being bucth or vice versa. And I definitely don't think that I know you enough at all to say whether or not you're a woman. If you tell me who you are, I believe you.
I didn't mean to add to the tranphobic mess that's been floaing around the blogosphere, so I really am sorry. I don't think I've expressed myself well at all, and that's frustrating, but I'm guessing it's more frustrating for you so, I'll stop. Hopefully, in the future, if you read anything else I write on this topic it will be clear where I stand and how I feel.
Much applause for Miriam and her hotness. And this is a totally hot list in a gazillion ways.
Also, more than other "hot lists" we've seen lately, this one is way more diverse. And hot.
Miriam looks so totally cute in that picture.
1) Congrats to Mariam for feats of great studliness :-)
2) Thank you so much Entymology Girl and Zyfron for speaking up.
3) Thank you Jessica, for posting this quote. Somehow i missed it and it answered a key question for me.
Its too bad Sinclair didn't actually check in with the Top 100 to get consent to be included (in some cases research would've been enough). The statement shows a good understanding that many of the men, and women, and possibly some of the non-binary genderqueers on the list might be upset being called "butch" but they decide to do it anyway?? Sinclair is forcing others to "reclaim" a term. Reclamation doesn't work like that! Its ironic that Sinclair complains that the Top 10 list contained only media-imagined images of butchness, because by putting up images of folks they imagine to be butch instead of all real, self-professed butches, Sinclair is doing the same thing here. Its sad because this site could've been SO AWESOME! There are many butches out there who are loud and proud, and hot! So why not give them props?!?
I don't know everyone on the list: does anyone know if Sinclair included any trans woman butches? If he was truly looking to make a diverse list to provide visibility this seems like a natural point of inclusion!! And if there's not, well, out of 123 names that's disappointing.
Well, at least there's that... i kept going down the list and did find a trans woman!
Was there? I didn't notice and I must be oblivious now because I still am not seeing any trans women...who is it? All that's listed for most of these people is a name and I don't know who most of them are.
#84. Riki Wilchins She was part of the Transsexual Menace crew back in the 90's and went on to do GenderPAC.
The best they could do for a butch trans woman was Riki Wilchins? From the freaking 90's? How's that for a tacked-on token.
Trans dudes are hot, trans women are invisible (especially butch trans women): Same old shit, same old queers patting themselves on the back for this crap.
How about we start addressing this ongoing transfail by Feministing by getting some trans men and trans women as regular contributors? Cuz as cis allies y'all just drop the ball continually.
Posting short blurbs about trans women getting murdered and trans men being hot isn't inclusion, it's just more systemic transphobia.
"The best they could do for a butch trans woman was Riki Wilchins? From the freaking 90's? How's that for a tacked-on token."
Riki Wilchins never stopped being active in the trans community, and I would definitely not consider her a tacked-on token.
She's still one out of one hundred. That feels tacked-on to me.
I didn't mean to diminish her experiences since the 90's, I apologize for that, but is the queer world that out of touch with trans women? There's nothing in her singular selection that doesn't scream problematic - and that is not about Riki, it is about a system that has no significant investment in the experience of trans women.
eeps! miriam is totally cute and her posts are always brilliant. yay.
also, i agree that putting trans identified men on the list is totally bogus. it feels a bit lazy...like can we just make a list that has hot butch women and another list for hot trans dudes? seriously - butch women are NOT the same as men and trans men are NOT women. that part grossed me out.
and it sucks because the men that they had on there really are amazing and really hot (in so many ways)...but their self-determined identities were compromised in order for them to be honored in that way. unfair.
but yeah, go miriam. :)
Judith Halberstam, who is on the list looking stunning, actually wrote a book called "Female Masculinity" that those interested in this discussion may want to check out. It provides some great insight in terms of the demarcations as well as the fluidity between butch, androgynous, trans, etc., identities of female-assigned people. (I'm queer, but femme, so I don't think I can really add a personal opinion about who is included on this list. So i'll defer to Halberstam)
yeah, female masculinity elided the differences between male identity and butch identity as well as sinclair did, that's for sure.
Just an heads up: Halberstam is very academic and hard to read in some crucial ways. I read this book and found it to be an enjoyable exploration of butchness but definately insulting (and ignorant) regarding trans men. But i also talked to a trans man who was trained in reading thickly academic texts who said she was saying the opposite of what many angry, disappointed trans men were walking away with. So i guess...well, just be warned that unless you're really academic you might not actually know what she's talking about even though you think you do :-)
I must admit that I have to take issue here, as I do not believe that something being academic is an excuse for it being inaccessible and problematic.
I'm a bit of an academic myself and I took the same things away from the book that many critics of it found to be problematic.
Regardless of what Judith attempted to say, it's what they really said that makes the difference and forms the discussions surrounding the work. And what Judith presented, from my understanding the last time I read this work, is very much a conflated male/"butch" identity.
Oh, i wouldn't say its an excuse for being problematic either. I guess my mini-review was more meant to say: I don't totally trust Halberstam's views but its also sad that i can't tell what her views are! But the fact that she is even that careless is telling, and i think she is kinda stuck in the ivory tower so to speak.
Interestingly, it was her take on rural queerness that finally made me loose faith in her. Like her famous "Butch/FTM Boarder Wars" article she made some accidental insults when reviewing a documentary on Brandon Teena, but not about his gender identity but more of the what-poor-soul-would-not-want-to-live-in-a-thriving-queer-metropolis variety. And like with "Boarder Wars" she got called out and wrote a clarifying/apologizing essay that still managed to put her foot in her mouth more(!) Sigh, go figure...
Ok, that makes more sense. Thank you for that bit of clarification.
I think most of everything you just said is pretty much exactly what I find problematic with Halberstam as well.
OMG people, calm the !$#@ down. If ya wanna get PICKY here and be BITCHY about someone's personal project, fine. I'll get picky too. There were a buncha women on that list who are not even butch AT ALL, femme in fact, in my opinion. You see, everyone has their own opinions. We are not all FACT HOLDERS people; each person's "facts" may not be another person's. Definitions, and labels, and names are not absolute either. Transmen are transmen, not "men", not "women". They are butch, or maybe not. I know a lot of butch men, and a lotta girly men, straight AND gay. Maybe someone who has had top surgery and takes hormones doesn't even call her/him self trans at all. When I finally get the means to do what I've wanted since I was five years old, I will not want to be labeled transman, or butch, or a man, or....? OR, maybe I will. Depends on the day.
Point being, that tophotbutches EXPLAINS that the list is about all sorts of people indentifying or labeling in all sorts of ways. It is someone's tribute if you will, to people physically born female, who may or may not be physically changed now, who may or may not identify themselves as masculine; who have male attributes and/or "look" masculine in some way (u.s. society says so anyway, other cultures may not). So how about giving KUDOS to Sinclair instead of being all bashy. Jeez.
Transmen are transmen, not "men", not "women".
No. I'm a trans man. I'm also a man. I'm not a third gender special rainbow unicorn butterfly, and I won't just lie down and take it when someone misgenders me (and calling me neither man nor woman is misgendering me). This attitude is exactly what silences trans people in conversations like this--it tells us what we should think about something rather than listening to what we are saying we think about it. so listen more.
finally, a reifying a category of people who, as you put it are "physically born female" (uh, try "assigned female") is NOT AT ALL RADICAL. In fact it is completely reactionary and at its core transphobic, sexist, and biologically essentialist. It's not queer, it's not cool.
i mean, seriously, what does buck angel have in common with some of the andro women listed on that page? if your answer is related to genitalia, can't you see how fucked up that is?
also, i'm sick and tired of queer cissexual people relying on their chromosome fetishism to get them out of tight spots when they show their cis privileged behinds. grow up.
oh get over yourself, it'll make your life easier. And where did you get the unicorn butterfly shit? Quit the psuedo-intellectual b.s. I know you want to be seen as really smart but posts like this just make you look defensive, confrontative, and into bashing other's opinions. YOUR opinion is great, I totally support it. I'm TRANS MYSELF. Why don't you show some respect for other's opinions and words like you so much want for yourself? I
the phrase "I'm trans myself" is not a get out of jail free card. any cissexual person could say "I'm trans myself" to defer attention from their transphobic viewpoints. and you know, being trans is no promise that someone won't reinforce cissexism. which is exactly what you are doing.
is telling me I sound smart supposed to be an insult?
*I know you want to be seen as really smart but posts like this just make you look defensive, confrontative, and into bashing other's opinions. YOUR opinion is great, I totally support it. I'm TRANS MYSELF. Why don't you show some respect for other's opinions and words like you so much want for yourself?*
Just because you are trans yourself and identify as neither man nor woman, but "transman," does not give you the right to dismiss trans men who identify differently as "defensive" and "into bashing other's opinions" and "picky" and "bitchy."
No one is questioning your right to your opinion here, but you are denying others their right to respectfully disagree with you.
You shouldn't make assumptions about how people identify, nor should you force your gender views on others. That's called gender policing, and it's exactly what's at issue here.
This list assumes the gender of people based on whatever arbitrary criteria Sinclair and panel personally feel constitutes "butch," and publicly labels them as such without their permission. That's just lazy, and wrong.
If Sinclair really wants to make it a "personal project", where there's no need to care about how people feel about their labels, then Sinclair can buy a scrapbook.
Trans men are men. If you say otherwise, you need to stop talking about trans people and start listening to trans people.
Because what you're saying, right here? It's offensive. Not only are you invalidating trans men's gender completely (erasing it completely), but you are going on to justify this erasure by invoking your own self-identification or potential self-identification as a reason to erase trans men's gender.
"Transmen are transmen, not "men", not "women""
Please read the responses to your comment; this is transphobic - which we can't tolerate on the thread. Consider this a warning.
You know, Jessica, I find it very problematic that you can seem to take the time to comment on some transphobic vitriol on the comment thread that every one else has called out, yet, you can't seem to take the time to comment on the transphobia inherent in the link that you posted.
I have to admit Jessica, if you do have time, it could be helpful to post a very quick follow up to the quote with your own feelings about it. I did think it was very helpful and applicable to the conversation, but wasn't totally sure where you were coming from in posting it.
Sure - I agree with you that I would have been more comfortable with the hot list had Sinclair gotten the consent of folks before listing them given that not everyone would want to be labeled "butch." (Tho given some of the celebs on the list, I understand why that's not really possible.)
Upon reading Sinclair's explanation of why "butch" was used to i.d. all sorts of folks, it made sense to me - esp in talking about "intentional display(s) of masculinity." BUT, after reading comments here (and recognizing that my cis privilege makes it all too possible for me to miss transphobia), I tend to agree that it's problematic and lends itself to - as Entomology Girl put it - the transmen are just butch lesbians narrative.
thanks for clarifying :-)
Just to repeat what I said to Miriam down there:
Could you, and all the Feministing editors, please start putting the space in trans man and trans woman? It's really othering if you don't.
Gay men aren't called gaymen, black women aren't called blackwomen, etc. Trans men and women are men and women who happen to be trans.
Apologies. The moderation of so many posts can be extremely overwhelming, so often I have to pick and choose what I respond to (obvious transphobia can't wait, conversations about transphobia I see as less pressing). But you're right that I should have taken the time to explain my position.
Jessica, as much as I appreciate Feministing's attempts to be trans-inclusive, having only cis people writing and editing the blog says to me that these kind of cis privilege blunders will continue as.
After your retreat in May, the post on Feministing's future suggested to me we were moving in the right direction. Instead of waiting for the direction to be set, however, I think you need trans voices - especially the voices of trans women - involved now, and not just as commenters or readers, but as a visible and equal part of the site.
It would go a long way for me as a trans woman to believing this site is inclusive for people like me if I could see myself reflected in the people who run, write, and direct editorial policy.
I would agree with all of that except possibly for the "especially the voices of trans women" part.
While there seems to be less active hatred, trans men have routinely been silenced and belittled on this site.
Though I suppose you could say that as a feminist site the emphasis is on the women and thus the space is not really intended for men... though I'm not really sure WHY you would want to exclude the voices of trans men from the conversation as I'm sure they have lots of unique insight into sexism and gender in our society.
I never said to exclude trans men. That has never been my position and is not implied in my comments.
While I do think some trans men have valuable insight into feminism, as do some cis men, this might be part of the underlying issue: If trans women are women, shouldn't feminism's primary concern be the voices and narratives of women?
There's a difference between silencing and belittling, and the systemic hatred and exclusion of trans women. Beyond that, though, if we drop the trans prefix for a moment, maybe that will reframe this: Should we be worrying ourselves so much about the inclusion of men in feminism?
While the assistance and insight of men can help the goals of feminism, this is a movement for women, and, well, trans women are either women or we're not. If we are then folks should be worried about the voices of women being heard in feminism, and not spend so much concern that men, trans or not, have a place and a voice.
A valid position, I think.
I just didn't want it to be thought that the trans men had NOT been getting poor treatment here as well.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were wanting to exclude trans men, that was directed at the community more generally which often HAS excluded trans men. It wasn't meant as an attack, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I think it comes down to deeper issues of when feminism is all about women and when it encompasses sexism and ideas about gender and patriarchy - which trans men, while not women, have a unique and valuable perspective on.
Ah, just to clarify because I realized that last sentence could be mis-read -
I meant that while trans men are not women they still have a unique and valuable perspective,
NOT that they do and women don't :)
OK just wanted to make sure there wasn't confusion there.
Sorry, you didn't come across as attacking or snarky at all, I apologize if I seemed curt. That's what I get for writing a Feministing comment in one window, and work email in another (where I'm entirely willing to be curt ;)).
I definitely see the value of trans men in feminism (cis men, too), and their experiences can only make for a more diverse chorus of narratives. I didn't mean to suggest that Feminism wasn't for everyone, either, but I wanted to make sure we weren't spending more energy at making men feel welcome than addressing a very marginalized group of women.
Thanks, I think you're totally right. And tho not everyone who writes for Feministing identifies as cis, I want to be clear that we're in the process of bringing new writers onto the site now, with the inclusion of trans voices at the forefront of our minds.
Wow, this is such a friendly, open and welcoming place. Wait, no it's NOT! hahaaa you guys sure do like to judge and argue. "Consider this a warning" you say? EXCUSE ME ??? I consider it a "threat". I am NOT transphobic, considering that I call myself trans, just cannot afford the surgery yet. Or do you have some judgment call about that too?? Transmen ARE transmen, you need to read some books on semantics. I was born a woman, yet I do not think that I'm a woman, nor am I a man. You people get too offended, it's as if you are waiting to be offended so you can argue and get defensive, for fun. It's weird. Don't worry, I'm "warned" and will not patronize (oops, you probably have a problem with that word don't you??) I mean use (oh shit, another bad word) I mean log on to your site anymore and will definitely be telling my friends how nice you all are!
How about, along with the "I Liked this comment" option, there was an "I thought this comment was ridiculous and self-important" option too?
I'd use that. Often.
i don't really care what you think about yourself. it's when you intimate something about me that is when you cross a line. if you can't comprehend this, something is wrong.
i don't care if your gender/sex is fuzzy purple tote bag. as long as you respect mine, which you aren't.
way to be dismissive. you know, just because you are quite happy to third-gender yourself doesn't mean it's okay to non-consensually do it to others.
I'm afraid you're not really helping Sinclair's case by your advocacy here. You couldn't be more prejudiced and assumptive, not to mention juvenile.
Sinclair responded to my email to say he'll be changing the site today and talking about why later.
Awesome.
Yep, I got a similar response to my email. I am impressed with his promptness and willingness to rethink this.
I'm a little late in the game, and I do apologize for that.
But can we all take a second to talk about transphobia? I feel extremely uncomfortable with the way the word is being thrown around on this thread, especially given the multitude of ways transphobia creates and sustains physical, emotional, structural (etc) violence towards trans folks of varied identities. This word - "trans" - doesn't mean only one, two, three things. It's highly contested and highly personal to many many people.
I will first disclose that I am a queer femme presenting (but not femme identifying) cisgendered woman and - with that in mind - will and can only comment on my own gender experience... ...which, frankly, is not relevant to this thread. However, I have been involved in relationships (to use the word loosely) with butch dykes, butch women, butch lesbians, trans women, trannies, transmen, trans guys...and folks who either have yet to find comfortable self identifying terms or aren't interested in doing so (the last category is the trickiest, but for ME, not the person in question)....every new relationship, interaction, meeting, etc. involves an initial exploration of how the individual involved sees her/him/hir/co self, what labels they prefer....and rarely have I encountered the same gender experience twice.
I am not claiming any kind of "expertise" or knowledge here - quite the contrary. And I have no intention of speaking for anyone other than myself.
BUT, as a cisgendered trans ally there HAS to be room for me to ask questions (respectively) without fearing I will therefore be labeled as transphobic for not knowing something I have no way of knowing until I ask.
Let's not conflate true transphobia with ignorance, especially when that ignorance is not only unintentional but also being actively rectified.
What is the point of this rant, you might ask?
I read Sinclair's blog pretty regularly. I've never before thought him to be transphobic and I don't think this list makes him transphobic now. I DO think, given this conversation, that there were a lot of problems with his list, but it's a list being generated within a community of people who genuinely (from what I've read) see themselves as trans allies. And perhaps this is in part due to other trans-identifying people feeling that the list is actually a step in the RIGHT direction, even if there isn't a consensus within the entirety of a community that (in diverse ways) identifies as trans.
Again, I'm not trying to speak for anyone, but I would like to suggest that our identities (ALL our identities) are far more complicated and varying than this thread seems willing to allow. And I am often silent because the fear of being labeled as transphobic is far too terrifying...
So how do people like me learn? How do we become BETTER allies? I will never know how you identify unless you tell me. And sometimes it's hard and scary to ask. I imagine sometimes it's hard and scary to tell. But "we" (whoever "we" are) have enough enemies out "there" without creating new and often unnecessary rifts within potentially safe, liberatory, and potential spaces. This is not to devalue those who have been offended or violated or belittled or marginalized by this list or any other conversation relating to identity and presentation. But calling out transphobia does not seem - TO ME - the most productive way to proceed here.
This is a tone argument. "I'll be your ally/care about your issues/learn about your problem if you talk nicer to me." The problem is that for some people, no tone ever suffices, and over and over oppressed groups are called on tone when they're actually being polite. It's a way of derailing, making it about *your* privileged-person feelings instead of injustice, and it comes up in every discussion of racism, sexism, and every other -ism I've ever seen on the net. The answer is to ask your questions anyway, and to take your lumps if you get called on cis bias. No one dies from being called out.
Here's a few discussions of "the tone argument" for your consideration. The meta discussion was about racism, but the principles are the same.
http://elfwreck.insanejournal.com/228142.html
http://inalasahl.livejournal.com/149900.html
http://zvi-likes-tv.livejournal.com/429727.html
I don't really care at all what cis people think of how often or when trans people want to use the word transphobia.
I've noticed Sinclair being weird on their blog about trans men before. shrugs.
also, are you seriously pulling the "if you are mean to me however will I learn??!??" routine?
if your ally-ship is dependent on not hearing the words transphobia or cissexism, you need to rethink calling yourself an ally.
also, i don't believe that ally is a label. it's the work you do, if you do it.
If you are really, truly *terrified* of being called out on transphobia, this suggests to me that you
1.) aren't really willing to learn.
2.) seriously need to get your priorities in order.
And let's be honest, being *terrified* of being called out about transphobia or transmisogyny on some level suggests that trans people are scary, use aggressive tactics, or are otherwise to be feared. That was the tactic of the backlash to the Michfest/Mr. Lady boycott (remember all those stories about scary trans women and their allies attacking artists?), and it's an easy fallback position. It erases trans people's arguments and implies we are dangerous.
I wonder if the commenter is as terrified of being called racist, ableist, or classist, too, or if it is just transphobia which is so scary.
Maybe the fear isn't simply of being called out on being transphobic, but how (tone, word choice, that sort of thing) a person is called out on it?
1) The fact that there are a wide and diverse array of gender identities is exactly why it IS transphobic to call a trans man (Or anyone, for that matter) "butch" without their consent. In this case in particular, trans men are often denied their individual experiences with gender and identity by being inaccurately lumped in as "butch." Don't know how you've missed that from the discussion that's gone on so far...
2)You said: "calling out transphobia does not seem - TO ME - the most productive way to proceed here."
The most "productive way to proceed" towards what goal, I wonder? If the goal is to raise awareness of how even subtle, well-meaning people can post transphobic things out of ignorance or carelessness, and the way in which this affects trans people in a very real way by contributing to an overall culture in which trasphobic views are the norm, held by default by most of the population, then how can that possibly proceed WITHOUT calling out the transphobia?
This idea is central to feminism - I doubt that the people who design PETA ads sit around their table and think "hmm...how can we marginalize and objectify women today?" but because of carelessness and a lack of examination, they still manage to produce very sexist things. That concept doesn't stop and end with sexism against cis women, it applies to every form of cultural discrimination including transphobia.
Based on the wealth of discussion that's already been posted in this thread (don't even have to leave the page to read others already saying these things!) I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU.
And if I were in a worse mood, I wouldn't have. If someone says to you "That thing you just said is actually really transphobic" and especially if they say "That thing you just said is actually really transphobic because of a b and c" it is not a judgment of your character or your intentions, but it IS an analysis of your viewpoint. If you can't take that, you shouldn't be having ANY discussion. Discussions are about analyzing viewpoints. Sometimes things get heated; that is the nature of social activism.
You ask "If I can't ask, how will I learn?"
And in addition to seconding what's already been said about how much of a silencing effect this has given the context, let me ask you a different question:
If you are unable to admit when you are wrong, how will you learn?
Sometimes calling out transphobia is the only way to answer questions. If someone asked "Why do women just want to stay in the kitchen all day?" There would be no way to answer except by calling out the inherent sexism in the question, even if it was well intentioned and asked out of ignorance. If you want to learn how to be accepting and supportive of trans people, part of that will NECESSARILY be learning when something you have said is transphobic.
I am not your personal guide to my strange and exotic customs. I am NOT going to promise never to get worked up or upset over issues which are very personal to me just because YOU then feel left out of a discussion which was never about you in the first place.
And in the event that you DON'T believe that raising awareness of how transphobia in things like this hurts trans people is a worthwhile goal - all I can say is that at that point, you have no right to say you are NOT being transphobic, if you think that our issues or discrimination against us doesn't matter or "isn't important enough" to be discussed over how "hot" a bunch of photos on a website might be.
That is all.
Oh and for the record?
Next time you feel that it is "terrifying" to be called out as transphobic - think about how terrifying it is to be trans in a world where so much blatant and intense transphobia is allowed to go unchecked and is actually considered the norm. That's why transphobia needs to be called out.
If your uncomfortable with the idea that you hold transphobic views, the correct response is to change those views, not to ignore them and ask everyone else to stop pointing them out when WE are the ones being hurt.
I said I'd shut up about this, but one last thing-You know, your comment here really pointed out to me how defensive I was about my own comments at first. I think no one wants to THINK of themselves as any kind of -ist or -phobic, or to be told that they're being insensitive-obviously, no one wants that. I guess it's hard sometimes to take criticism for what it is rather than as an indictment of one's whole character. My first thought when I read the responses was "I'm not like that! Why don't they see that?" Maybe this is a basis for a lot of the problems that pop up in these discussions.
Thanks for your words here. They made me think very hard, and I think your point is valid.
" ... but it's a list being generated within a community of people who genuinely (from what I've read) see themselves as trans allies."
Seeing oneself as a trans-ally and actively being one are two different things.
Being a trans-ally means we'll never truly know all there is to know about being trans, the trans community, and trans politics. It means, yes, having the guts to work for inclusion and visibility for trans-people, but also the humility to shut yer piehole when you're being called out for one of your own knowledge-holes.
"Seeing oneself" as a trans-ally doesn't require any of those discomforts. It is frequently the mark of someone who is aware of cultural politics, has got a few transgendered friends, and thinks that's all they need to know to make declarative statements.
I don't deny the "good intentions" of Sinclair and the "jury" who "vetted" this list. But, as my conservative father likes to say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
~ hb33 ~
MsF, you say you're "queer femme presenting (but not identifying.)" So, would you like to on a list of Top 100 Hot Femmes, for all the world to see, and have that gender ID incorrectly associated with you? Or would you prefer that the compiler of the list send you an email first and ask if you identify as femme, and whether you want to participate? That's all Sinclair would have had to do to make this list meaningful and not insulting to trans men. I know trans men that ID as butch, one of the ones removed from the list in fact.
But Sinclair didn't do that, and made a point of asserting that butch means displaying "intentional masculinity" and "rejecting compulsory femininity", which is highly problematic when applied to trans men nonconsensually. And whether you'd like to call Sinclair's failure to consider this "ignorance" or "transphobia", we're still talking about the same thing. It doesn't matter if you think the language is inflammatory - Sinclair should take the lumps however they're doled out, and do better next time.
For those who can't quite grasp why us trans folks are getting a bit uppity about this....
Imagine someone compiled a list of Hot Hetero Women, celebrating them for really rocking intentional femininity -- and included femme lesbians on it.
And then said "I know these femme don't self-label as 'hetero women' but I'm going to call them that anyway because I think it is the most accessible and recognizable word representing the sort of femininity I want to celebrate."
A better example might be if that list or lesbians contained men who the writer thought were "feminine" whether they identified that way or not. Or if a list of masculine men was made, and a few women were put on the list even if they had no desire to be associated with or identified as male or masculine.
Or better yet, what if someone compiled a list of hot transsexual women, and then decided also to include some cis men who they felt were "girly" without asking or even bothering to find out if those men thought of themselves as "girly" at all. All I've done in that example is to swap "trans" and "cis" from the original list in question. Switch out "men" and "women" and replace "girly" with "manly," and you'll have the reverse example from this one.
"For those who can't quite grasp why us trans folks are getting a bit uppity about this....
Imagine someone compiled a list of Hot Hetero Women, celebrating them for really rocking intentional femininity -- and included femme lesbians on it.
And then said "I know these femme don't self-label as 'hetero women' but I'm going to call them that anyway because I think it is the most accessible and recognizable word representing the sort of femininity I want to celebrate."
Well Lena, as a femme I guess I would be insulted, cos straight cisguys do this to me all the time. But you know what? I am exclusively attracted to butches and transguys. And I know I am not alone in this. And, as such, I LOVE Sinclair's list. Because... guess what? It is the first time in my 30 something years I have ever felt the inclusion of someone butch or trans is more than a token gesture. Yes, this is a diverse list - and was probably always going to provoke a healthy debate over the consensual and ethical use of identity labels (used with a giant disclaimer by Sinclair as adjective, rather than noun, but hey). But please please please don't take it away...
I don't think anyone's suggested taking down the list, from what I heard, the trans men didn't want their peers to be forcibly included in it. (Sinclair has removed the trans men from the list BTW.)
Yes, it may be in part semantics -- had Sinclair labeled it as a celebration of butchness or "Top Butchy People" I suspect the reaction might have been different. But it wasn't labelled that way and Sinclair's references to rejecting "compulsory femininity" and "female masculinity" made it pretty clear the list was supposed to be about women/female-bodied people.
Just to clarify, now I'm not half-asleep... Sinclair came across as wanting to highlight people who self-identify as female. Which was the crux of the problem with including trans men.
FWIW, I know a number of butches who get pretty anger when they're mistaken for men, because being female-identified is an important part of their identity.
The central problem of the list was that its stated goals were contradictory: celebrating female-identified butches and celebrating butch people, who as Sinclair acknowleged might not identified as butches, lesbians or woman -- and for that matter might also be male-identified people (gay or hetero) who practice "intentional masculinity." (Akin to how femmes engage in "intentional femininity.")
I'll give Sinclair props for responding quickly when was pointed out, but the list obviously took time and effort to put together and I'm a bit shocked that it just never occurred to Sinclair or the other people involved that approach was certain to upset many trans men.
i hate when people think as soon as they bring up what they like sexually, that puts everything else beyond criticism. i personally don't give a damn who or what you are attracted to. it still was a bad move. your erotic needs don't trump my needs not to be made to feel like something about me is essentially female.
also, all chasers usse "transguys". they rarely if ever just say men.
also, why not just say "i'm a chromosome fetishist". i recommend it.
I apologise for making you feel essentialised jayadam. But disrespecting folk for who they love is just mean.
no one disrespected you for who you love. someone criticised you conflating trans men with butchwomen just because you are attracted to them.
Oh no, not again.
Why include trans men and not a few cis men too? Very few of those wouldn't revolt against compulsory femininity, and there's a handful with weird parents who actually *did* revolt when their parents tried to make them socialise as girls.
FYI everyone, Sinclair has decided to take transmen off the list. Read his full explanation here.
Could you, and all the Feministing editors, please start putting the space in trans man and trans woman? It's really othering if you don't.
Gay men aren't called gaymen, black women aren't called blackwomen, etc. Trans men and women are men and women who happen to be trans.
Thank you for bringing this up, it's been a real problem for me both on the list's disclaimers as well as on this thread. It's trans allyship 101-level etiquette. And please don't use the word "tranny" unless you are a trans person yourself.
Thanks for pointing that out. I usually try to, but I was distracted by other discussions going on
Yeah, it slipped my mind until this morning as well. Heh.
FYI, RockabillyButch on this thread is Sinclair.
if this is true, i wish they would have just be explicit about who they are.
It certainly would explain why Rockabillybutch is so irrationally defensive of this project. And why they're so disrespectful of others' rights to self-identification.
I think it's really inappropriate to make allegations like this without even attempting to prove them. Sinclair doesn’t write anything like RockabillyButch, Sinclair isn't saving up for chest surgery (as far as I know), and, I think most importantly, Sinclair thoughtfully responded to the substantive critiques of the list and has taken steps to make the situation right.